Bush v. Price ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6685
    LARRY LAMONT BUSH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN H. PRICE, Warden; WILLIAM BRITTON, Case
    Manager; MARY CHAPLIN-COLE, Case Manager; M.
    STOUFFER, Warden; K. HOFFMAN, Case Manager,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03-
    2264-1-AMD)
    Submitted:   October 20, 2004             Decided:   December 6, 2004
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
    opinion.
    Larry Lamont Bush, Appellant Pro Se.    John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney
    General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry Lamont Bush appeals the district court’s order
    denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and to compel
    discovery in this action filed pursuant to 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000).
    With regard to the denial of injunctive relief, we have reviewed
    the record and find no reversible error.         Accordingly, we affirm
    for the reasons stated by the district court.         See Bush v. Price,
    No. CA-03-2264-1-AMD (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2004).
    To the extent that Bush appeals the denial of the motion
    to compel discovery, this court may exercise jurisdiction only over
    final orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (2000), and certain interlocutory
    and collateral orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
     (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P.
    54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
     (1949).
    The order Bush seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
    appealable interlocutory or collateral order.            Accordingly, we
    dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.           We
    grant the motion to submit on informal briefs and dispense with
    oral   argument   because   the   facts    and   legal   contentions   are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-6685

Judges: Niemeyer, Michael, Motz

Filed Date: 12/6/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024